Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Algorithm, Expert, or Both? Evaluating the Role of Feature Selection Methods on User Preferences and Reliance

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.01171 v1 pith:2KVM6PQK submitted 2024-08-02 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords usersmethodspreferencesreliancefeaturemethodselectiontreatment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The integration of users and experts in machine learning is a widely studied topic in artificial intelligence literature. Similarly, human-computer interaction research extensively explores the factors that influence the acceptance of AI as a decision support system. In this experimental study, we investigate users' preferences regarding the integration of experts in the development of such systems and how this affects their reliance on these systems. Specifically, we focus on the process of feature selection -- an element that is gaining importance due to the growing demand for transparency in machine learning models. We differentiate between three feature selection methods: algorithm-based, expert-based, and a combined approach. In the first treatment, we analyze users' preferences for these methods. In the second treatment, we randomly assign users to one of the three methods and analyze whether the method affects advice reliance. Users prefer the combined method, followed by the expert-based and algorithm-based methods. However, the users in the second treatment rely equally on all methods. Thus, we find a remarkable difference between stated preferences and actual usage. Moreover, allowing the users to choose their preferred method had no effect, and the preferences and the extent of reliance were domain-specific. The findings underscore the importance of understanding cognitive processes in AI-supported decisions and the need for behavioral experiments in human-AI interactions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An Empirical Examination of the Evaluative AI Framework

    cs.HC 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A pre-registered experiment found that an AI providing only pro and con evidence, without recommendations, did not improve decision performance and was used shallowly by participants.

Pith tools